Bush Campaign Strategy: FEAR !

The two main fear ingredients of the Bush re-election campaign:
The National Security Illusion and the Stigma of 9-11

by: Toby Vest

"But no matter what Americans now think of Saddam, Iraq, WMDs, or the Patriot Act we must admit failure on our part to stop the loss of our civil liberties and admit our blind acceptance of the state of fear which we are currently living in."

After the recent increase in violence and death in Iraq, I began pondering the rationale of President Bush’s claims that we are winning the war on terrorism and America is more secure as a nation because of it. The question that kept coming to mind was: If the U.S. military, the most powerful army in the world, can’t control the security of a city the size of Fallujah how can the President claim that America is safer than before? The answer, I guess, is a matter of perspective.

After September 11th, America united behind the efforts of the Bush administration. Not everyone agreed with the policy choices but most expected and wanted a U.S. reaction and Congress gave the President the ability to do just that. So the President and his boys at the Pentagon began developing a strategy to stop global terrorism. The invasion of Afghanistan began abroad and government implemented improved security measures at the nation’s airports and transportation hubs. Congress soon started passing legislation to better allow U.S. law enforcement agencies, namely the CIA and FBI, to track and monitor terrorists living in or trying to enter the U.S.

The most notable piece of legislation was the Patriot Act, which expanded the legality of spying on people living in the U.S., citizens and non-citizens alike. The ratification of this bill was a long and heated affair because of concerns that it allowed the government too much leeway in the definition of terrorism, others said it was essential to fighting the new global menace. The bill’s passage was the first major example of the compromises Americans began to make for the sake of national security in the wake of 9-11.

Next came the long prelude to the Iraq War and the insistence that Americans were in great danger of being the next victims of Saddam Hussein and his growing crop of weapons of mass destruction, which he could use or sell at his leisure. We now know that no such threat existed and the justifications for the war are ever-changing to fit the needs of the administration in this election year. But no matter what Americans now think of Saddam, Iraq, WMDs, or the Patriot Act we must admit failure on our part to stop the loss of our civil liberties and admit our blind acceptance of the state of fear which we are currently living in.

The majority, or maybe all of this fear comes from the events of 9-11 and I think Americans initially had the right to be scared but we’ve allowed our leaders to sell this brand of fear for far too long and it has begun to manipulate our lives. But sometimes the ideas used to scare us are hard to escape. Whether it’s Donald Rumsfeld telling us about new terror plots or the consistently “elevated” terror alert that flashes on screen every fifteen minutes, the scare tactics have done their job. So as a nation we should just accept the fact we are going to be attacked, our precaution and preparedness will not protect us against the unrelenting resolve of a true believer. Regardless of the number of terrorist plots thwarted by the U.S. more will be planned and eventually one will be successful. The ball was set in motion long ago and now we must ride it all the way to the end. How we react to the next one will decide our course for the future.

President Bush once said we must continue with our lives or the terrorists have won. Yet he asks us at every turn to compromise parts of our lives as Americans for the good of the nation and our security and in the process his administration has made us captives in our own country. Why are we fighting for freedom across the globe and taking it away from our own citizens? The dots simply do not connect. And now as the election creeps closer President Bush is using this fear as the basis of his campaign strategy, projecting himself as a strong leader making tough decisions in a time of crisis. But is his so called leadership really relevant and what has it brought us? First let’s look again at the aftermath of 9-11.

Some of the measures put into effect after 9-11, such as the creation of a Homeland Security Department, increased security at the nation’s airports and shipping centers, and improvements in keeping terrorists out of our country, are more positive than negative but I suspect they would have been implemented regardless of who was president. In fact, according to author Jack Huberman, the Bush administration originally opposed the creation of a Homeland Security Department and after eventually supporting it, held up the creation for months “over Bush’s insistence on stripping the department’s 200,000 workers of union rights, both to undermine the unions and accuse Democrats heading into the 2002 elections of putting union interests ahead of national security.”

On the negative side you have the Patriot Act, the War in Iraq, the War in Afghanistan, the continued violence in Iraq and the slowly unraveling War on Terrorism, and eroding economy and most importantly, the loss of American credibility across the world. The positive steps deserve acknowledgement but the effect of the negative will have a more lasting, harmful effect on our lives as Americans by creating more terrorists for us to battle. Yet the President continues to insist this is why we should re-elect him.

So in many ways, Bush’s bid for re-election is a fairly weak one. He’s all talk and no results. Everything he’s touched in the last 3 years has been wrapped in a veil of deception, not only the Iraq War but numerous other programs and policies but now as he embarks on the first leg of his campaign, he has lots of heavy names to throw around such as No Child Left Behind, the new Medicare bill, the tax cuts and our “growing“ economy, among others. Unfortunately Bush won’t be able to back up any of these policy decisions with facts to support them. The facts are most certainly stacked against him.

Take the idea of national security for example. From hearing W. tell it one might think he’s done everything in his power to protect American citizens from all that threatens. Compare the amount of money allocated for homeland security in the 2004 budget ($41 million) to the amount returned to wealthy Americans through tax cuts ($100 million) and it is clear where the President’s priorities lie. Billions of dollars are needed to further secure our ports, which according to the Council on Foreign Relation's report on port security, handle 95 percent of all U.S. imports. The report also estimates the cost of providing adequate security at $4.5 billion over the next nine years, $1 billion of which is needed immediately. Only $318 million of funding was provided and this is merely the top layer of deceit.
Bush also managed to cut funding for the police, fire and medical personnel he promised to support. In August 2002, the President vetoed $5.1 billion allocated by Congress for homeland security, $340 million for providing the same police officers, firefighters, and medical personnel he used for photo ops months earlier with essential equipment and supplies. According to Congressional Quarterly, “the Bush plan for funding first responders amounts to double entry bookkeeping: changes in the ledger that would result in no net increase in the amount of federal funding flowing to cities, counties, and states.”

Adding to the Bush/Cheney credibility problems, former terrorism advisor Robert Clarke recently attacked the administration for it’s conduct in the build up to the Iraq War, as well as its behavior before 9-11. Clarke was in the situation room on 9-11 and is now the second administration figure, joining former cabinet Paul O’Neil on the short list of administration dissidents within the Republican Party. Both claim Bush and his cronies were on the war path to Iraq well before 9-11 which suggests Al-Qaeda was not necessarily a top priority. One of Clarke’s main criticisms is based on the delay of a plan he devised (eventually called NSPD-9) to combat Al-Qaeda. Originally introduced on January 25th, 2001, the plan took nine months to reach the oval office so it could be approved. It was consequently approved on September 4th, 2001.

Administration officials have defended the delaying of NSPD-9 by saying Clarke’s original draft needed substantial changes but according to a recent Time Magazine article a senior Bush administration official admitted the NSPD-9 was exactly the same in all respects as the plan Clarke initially proposed. This contradiction is not the only one to surface as the administration rolled out the smut-peddlers in hopes of destroying, or at least fracturing Clarke’s credibility. Vice-President Dick Cheney attacked Clarke during an interview with drug-addled radio windbag Rush Limbaugh and in the process made an accidental omission.

“I didn’t know the guy that well. I’ve had some dealings with him over the years but judging based on what I’ve seen, I don’t hold him in high regard,” Cheney said.

Are you telling me the Vice-President of the United States doesn’t know one of the administration’s top advisors on terrorism? I find that statement alone to be a confirmation of every accusation Clarke has lain on the Bush administration. Clarke was in the White House situation room on 9-11 so he and the VP must have missed each other when Cheney went on a run to pick up some low fat yogurt. And all the time Clarke spent pushing terrorism to the new administration, the VP must have been hiding in his underground lair, a reasonable excuse don’t you think? All jokes aside, even if you believe Cheney didn’t know Clarke, it still shows that terrorism was not a major concern of this administration until the first plane hit the towers. Either way Cheney is just doing what he does best - lie.

In the end, none of this Iraq War / 9-11 conspiracy stuff really matters. The details are shifted around and manipulated by so many sources that the truth about what actually happened was lost somewhere in the middle while you were watching I Want a Famous Face. What is important is how the Bush Administration has looted the treasury and divided the spoils among their wealthy corporate buddies at the expense of the American people and our troops. Meanwhile hiding behind words like, family values, freedom, patriotism, national security, and evil doers, all for the sake of weakening our civil liberties, handing out corporate tax breaks, and devaluing social programs while quietly running our nation into the proverbial ground under the cowardly guise of revenge and greed. All of which the American people are supposed to accept on blind faith because when asked to defend his policies, Bush hides behind a shield of buzz words and religious jingoism. Criticism is met with attack politics and ugliness simply because the administration can not, on a common sense level, adequately describe the benefits of it’s policies.

The biggest problems Americans face is the giant propaganda machine of the administration, which is probably the best PR group ever to be assembled. The simple fact they have carried W. this far is a credit to their ability to perform under pressure. But their job performance could be the end of us all because most Americans don’t have the time to read four newspapers, five magazines and watch 12 to 14 hours of news per day checking the facts of every administration statement. It’s unfeasible and Americans are entitled to a more forthright and forthcoming attitude from our leaders, not the behavior of a back alley hustler searching for the right combination of lies so he can stick a six inch hunting knife in your side when you least expect it.

Remember the underlying hypocrisy in these themes when you see one of the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign ads. Watch as the President sits calmly, wearing a smug grin, knife safely concealed, forecasting the downfall of western civilization if we don’t allow him to see his plans through to fruition. “Let’s just forget all this Washington hocus-pocus,” I can hear him saying, “I’ve protected this nation for the last two years, why shift our focus now?” Personally, I don’t buy it but my gut says a lot of people do and that scares me. If this reckless and arrogant administration can blantantly lie in public and still maintain enough support to be re-elected, then there trully is no hope.

President Bush and the boys will stick to their guns, ride this komikaze trip to its flaming end, all the while claiming to be the only administration equipped to handle the events of the last three and a half years but it is my contention that any President should be able to easily react to an intense and tragic situation such as nine-eleven, frankly, I think it's written somewhere in the president's make up to be good under pressure but a true leader is proactive in his efforts to stop tragedy before it happens, not use it as a blood covered noose around the neck of the world. Have a pleasant summer vacation.